Yudan Taiteki wrote:古語 applies to language, not characters, so the reference was clearly to the language of the poem and not the characters, pointing back to the topic of the entire post (saying この漢字は古語 doesn't really make sense). Perhaps it would have been more elegant to explicitly say しかも、その歌は古語で書いてあります but the context made the meaning clear without an explicit topic shift.

Well, if 古語 as you say refers to language (I actually think it refers to words, not "language"), therefore in this context I didn't think it could apply to the poem itself. Therefore I concluded you must be referring to 万葉仮名, which if you like is the "writing system the poem was written in."

As for その歌は古語で書いてあります, I think the point I was making was that 万葉仮名 is still in use today, in personal names.

The definition of 古語 is 過去の時代に行われ、今は用いられないことば。

By this definition, it would seem your statement is contestable. Hence my reply.

richvh wrote:Knock it off. Christine, you're far too thin-skinned and unwilling to admit that you might be wrong, and far too ready to find fault with others with absolute statements of error. I say this not because I was one of the ones accused of not being up to JLPT 3 level (a condition I shall never test, as I have no intention of taking any level of the JLPT, ever, though I do think it a bit over the top, considering I have written a 93 chapter novel in Japanese, seeking out corrections from native speakers all along the way - and I'm well aware for that very reason that my Japanese is still less than perfect, though better than it used to be) for not agreeing with you as to how して～すること should be interpreted, but from observation of your behavior - arguing from authority, not willing to accept the opinions of even native speakers when they run counter to your opinion, and belittling others far more than you have been belittled. And if you think that is a personal attack, you can take it up with Clay.

(I think Chris Kern has taken the JLPT, but I don't remember what level.)

Richard,

I don't have any quarrel with you, and personally I'm disappointed (that you would call me thin-skinned, given the content of your post). First of all, I don't think I ever accused you of "not being up to JLPT 3 level." As you may recall, my reply to your translation was "I think my Japanese teacher would probably disagree with you" and gave my reasons why.

I did also say "I think both you and richvh need to review your basic Japanese grammar" but that was not an accusation, it was advice. My observation, if you recalled, was "I will say under the circumstances richvh's interpretation is probably semantically acceptable, although it is sloppy translation." (I also pointed out my own translation was sloppy) I still stand by that point, and the advice, if you want to take it.

As for "not willing to accept the opinions of even native speakers when they run counter to your opinion", exactly when did I do that? As I recall, it was Nocturnal Ocean and Yudan Taiteki who didn't want to accept the opinion of one native speaker. With respect to the second opinion you posted, I never said I disagreed with it, but I did say I thought the example was rather laborious and convoluted, and offered a counter example.

Personally, I don't care what level of JLPT you or anyone else is on. And like you, I have no intention of sitting for the tests either.

But she seems to be arriving at that conclusion by arguing that you couldn't have been talking about the poem because it isn't 古語. Which is nonsense on the face of it - if someone says that Beowulf is Old English, they aren't saying it's written in runes, which seems to be her conclusion.

But she seems to be arriving at that conclusion by arguing that you couldn't have been talking about the poem because it isn't 古語. Which is nonsense on the face of it - if someone says that Beowulf is Old English, they aren't saying it's written in runes, which seems to be her conclusion.

No, I think the conclusion is supposedly from the grammar. Here's my post again:
それはちょっと意地悪かもしれません。「いろは歌」という歌で、その漢字の全部は音声だけで使っています。しかも古語。例えば、「以呂波耳本へ止 」は「色は匂えど」。
Her argument seems to be that because of the その漢字の全部は, the しかも古語 has to apply to the 漢字 rather than the poem itself. But I don't think は is that restrictive.

Last edited by Yudan Taiteki on Thu 01.15.2009 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Christine, are you seriously trying to argue that the language in which the Iroha poem is written is not 古語?

See Yudan's reply. Either that, or Yudan was claiming that 万葉仮名 was no longer used in modern Japanese. Well, not in normal writing, but 万葉仮名 is still used in personal and place names today, so strictly speaking it is not 古語 (according to the definition of 古語 which I supplied).

I know, I'm clutching at straws.

But remember that 万葉仮名 originated primarily as a writing system for denoting proper names, as an adjunct to 漢文 and wasn't intended to replace it. One could argue that this usage has persisted to modern times so in that sense it is not "archaic" or no longer used.

万葉仮名 as a system for capturing spoken language is archaic, and has been archaic for quite some time.

Hope this makes my position clear. I didn't actually want to explain all that in Japanese, because in truth, my Japanese probably isn't good enough.

I know you think I am really arrogant, and thin-skinned, and unwilling to accept others' opinions, but I have done a bit of research into this. I don't claim that I am always right (even though it may seem I am) but I do feel that my considered position has some merit, even against the opinion of native speakers (who may or may not have done as much research).

Christine Tham wrote:But remember that 万葉仮名 originated primarily as a writing system for denoting proper names, as an adjunct to 漢文 and wasn't intended to replace it. One could argue that this usage has persisted to modern times so in that sense it is not "archaic" or no longer used.

My basic point was that actually studying or learning 万葉仮名 is useless for anything but reading the 万葉集 or other old works, and even then, they have editions of those works that are written in standard kanji and kana. Even though traces of 万葉仮名 still show up in certain names, you don't actually have to study or learn 万葉仮名 to be able to read those place names. Sort of like how certain Old English morphemes show up in English place names, but it's not necessary to study Old English to learn those place names.

I know you think I am really arrogant, and thin-skinned, and unwilling to accept others' opinions, but I have done a bit of research into this. I don't claim that I am always right (even though it may seem I am) but I do feel that my considered position has some merit, even against the opinion of native speakers (who may or may not have done as much research).

You should express your disagreement without insulting people's language ability. Especially on a language learning forum, that comes off as exceedingly rude, and I think that's the main thing that people are taking issue with.

richvh wrote:if someone says that Beowulf is Old English, they aren't saying it's written in runes, which seems to be her conclusion.

Again, see Yudan's reply.

Your analogy is not apt, because my position is "I don't think the writing system that iroha is written in can be considered "archaic", because archaic implies "no longer in use", but the writing system itself is still "in use" for place names and proper names."

Christine Tham wrote:I don't have any quarrel with you, and personally I'm disappointed (that you would call me thin-skinned, given the content of your post). First of all, I don't think I ever accused you of "not being up to JLPT 3 level." As you may recall, my reply to your translation was "I think my Japanese teacher would probably disagree with you" and gave my reasons why.

I did also say "I think both you and richvh need to review your basic Japanese grammar" but that was not an accusation, it was advice. My observation, if you recalled, was "I will say under the circumstances richvh's interpretation is probably semantically acceptable, although it is sloppy translation." (I also pointed out my own translation was sloppy) I still stand by that point, and the advice, if you want to take it.

Unlike you, I sought out opinions from native speakers as to whose understanding was more correct, rather than relying on my opinion of what my teacher's opinion would be; unlike you, Chris made an account on lang-8 to argue his case in that thread; you could have done the same, if you wished to argue the point. As for the accusation of incompetence - whether you realize it or not, when several people disagree with you on a point, and you accuse one of them of incompetence on the basis of that point, you're accusing all of them of the same thing - or, at least, all of them are likely to perceive it that way. (I'm still unconvinced that a single こと can't be a sequential process laid out by して…する, however convoluted you think the second post I quoted might be.)

And yes - saying someone's grammar isn't up to JLPT 3 level is a far more sweeping accusation than saying someone is wrong on a single point, (which is just debating - if everyone thought everyone else was right, there wouldn't be any debate, now would there?) which is why you got singled out for this moderator's attention.

Christine Tham wrote:

richvh wrote:if someone says that Beowulf is Old English, they aren't saying it's written in runes, which seems to be her conclusion.

Again, see Yudan's reply.

Your analogy is not apt, because my position is "I don't think the writing system that iroha is written in can be considered "archaic", because archaic implies "no longer in use", but the writing system itself is still "in use" for place names and proper names."

Equating 万葉仮名 to 古語 is equivalent to equating runes to Old English, so my point stands.

Yudan Taiteki wrote:My basic point was that actually studying or learning 万葉仮名 is useless for anything but reading the 万葉集 or other old works, and even then, they have editions of those works that are written in standard kanji and kana. Even though traces of 万葉仮名 still show up in certain names, you don't actually have to study or learn 万葉仮名 to be able to read those place names. Sort of like how certain Old English morphemes show up in English place names, but it's not necessary to study Old English to learn those place names.

I don't necessarily disagree with that.

Again, I think you misunderstood what I said. Remember I then switched topic to iroha the poem, so my comment was that it was useful to learn about iroha (in its multiple forms). By then, due to the switch in topic, I was no longer referring to 万葉仮名 itself.

If I wanted to say "it is useful to learn iroha *as well as* 万葉仮名, I would have used the non-exclusive topic marker も rather than the exclusive topic marker は. Perhaps I should have made it really clear by using something like では.

I suspected from your reply in Japanese that you had made this misinterpretation, which is why I didn't want to reply back.

I know from your reply you said there was no need to learn iroha in 万葉仮名, and I do agree.

Having said all that, I do think it's useful to learn 万葉仮名, but for personal reasons. I won't advocate it as general advice. I also think it would be nice to learn iroha in 万葉仮名, because then it would act as a Rosetta Stone between ひらがな and 万葉仮名 (though not a complete one).

Yudan Taiteki wrote:
You should express your disagreement without insulting people's language ability. Especially on a language learning forum, that comes off as exceedingly rude, and I think that's the main thing that people are taking issue with.

I do agree it was a bit strong and uncalled for. I guess I was frustrated because it seemed to me you were misinterpreting me at every turn, and by that stage I was really questioning whether what you wrote was what you meant, and whether you were reading my sentences in the way I meant. As you can see, there seemed to be ample evidence for my suspicion (I don't mean this as a personal attack, purely as a statement of my viewpoint).

Having said that, you seemed to have interpreted my last few posts correctly, so I should take my words back. So, my apologies.

By the way, what exactly did you mean in your sentence with 見えません? Did you mean you have never encountered it, you don't want to encounter it, it wasn't necessary for you to encounter it ...? I guess I'm curious.

richvh wrote:Unlike you, I sought out opinions from native speakers as to whose understanding was more correct, rather than relying on my opinion of what my teacher's opinion would be; unlike you, Chris made an account on lang-8 to argue his case in that thread; you could have done the same, if you wished to argue the point.

I wasn't trying to argue the point. Nocturnal Ocean asked me to clarify my rationale, which I did. I wasn't interested in canvassing other opinions, nor did I try to stop other people from expressing their own opinions.

richvh wrote:
As for the accusation of incompetence - whether you realize it or not, when several people disagree with you on a point, and you accuse one of them of incompetence on the basis of that point, you're accusing all of them of the same thing

I didn't accuse Yudan of incompentence on the basis of that point alone. I was referring to the fact that Yudan had translated that as "Print" which clearly is misleading at best. Nobody else translated it as "print."

richvh wrote:
(I'm still unconvinced that a single こと can't be a sequential process laid out by して…する, however convoluted you think the second post I quoted might be.)

And I've stated all along that it could be, but unlikely. As I've said before, think of AてBことができる and test that on a few examples.

If you really wanted to say "I can do A, then B sequentially" (as opposed to B without A, or B before A, etc.) I don't think you will make yourself clear by just saying AてBことができる. You probably have to insert additional explanation to make sure that people understood you were referring specifically to A and B in strict sequence.

The second post also ignores the context of the discussion, which is that if you look at the other definitions of the word as well, it seems unlikely that the first definition is inclusive of "printing" because the other definitions don't require that aspect.

That's why I thought the second example was convoluted, it seems the person posting it did not understand the full context of the discussion, which is a specific sentence in the context of a dictionary definition that includes multiple definitions.

It's possible to construct scenarios such that こと would be inclusive of the conjunction - I myself said it was possible, remember? But they would need to be special circumstances, like the example.

richvh wrote:
And yes - saying someone's grammar isn't up to JLPT 3 level is a far more sweeping accusation than saying someone is wrong on a single point, (which is just debating - if everyone thought everyone else was right, there wouldn't be any debate, now would there?) which is why you got singled out for this moderator's attention.

Well, I thought I was being clear that I was referring to the specific understanding of the application of こと not being up JLPT3 level. On rereading my post, I agree that it was very likely that my statement would be interpreted as Yudan's entire understanding of Japanese (especially when combined with my advice to review basic grammar). My apologies.

Isn't your set of recent posts proof that it is possible to "overread" someone's words? You have now "accused" me of several things that I didn't do, all based on your misunderstandings. I have since made my apologies to Yudan, what you want to do is up to you.

Christine Tham wrote:Equating 万葉仮名 to 古語 is equivalent to equating runes to Old English, so my point stands.

No, because 古語 does not mean "runes", or the equivalent of runes. I did give the definition earlier, which is very specific.

For reference, Kenkyusha's definition is " an archaic [obsolete] word; an archaism." As an example, この言葉はもう古語になっている. (This word is archaic [obsolete, no longer in use].)

My point is that the usage is not archaic. People do still have names that use words based on the writing system. On that basis, 万葉仮名 usage is not 古語.

Christine Tham wrote:No, because 古語 does not mean "runes", or the equivalent of runes.

No, but 万葉仮名 does.

I think the point we're getting tripped up on is, if a modern name is written in what was historically 万葉仮名, it's hard to argue that such a particular name would be equivalent to writing it in runic letters, and I don't think anybody's arguing that it is. But 万葉仮名 as a complete writing system is a good analogue to runic letters, because it is not in modern use for that purpose and a document written in it will generally not be understood except by people who specialize in it.